User talk:Tjsynkral

Keep up your voice of reason!
I admire your fortitude in dealing with the Connolley wolfpack. I once chuckled when a friend stated that he wouldn't reference Wikipedia even as a last resort (ironically, this friend is a devout liberal, bordering on the radical). I loved this site for its vast interlinked content, and often found my browser filled with so many Wikipedia tabs that the titles could no longer be read. I presumed that truth must surely always prevail, with each article finding an equilibrium based on sanity. Then I discovered the Global Warming talk archives, which are really nothing short of terrifying. I now understand my friend's statement, and I shudder to think of kids using Wikipedia while doing their homework.

To see these people manipulating the guidelines to further their own agendas, and even breaking rules without fear because they know they are among the protected few, is so incredibly demoralizing. Every time I see another example, I have thoughts of documenting it and building a case against them, but I am immediately overwhelmed by the prospect of taking on such a well-entrenched group of loyalists. Their wagons are circled so tightly as to create a sense of defeat before one even begins to try and introduce reason. What a sinking feeling! I truly believe the creators of this site would not abide by my being made to feel this way, but they simply cannot monitor every little clique that develops a stranglehold on individual articles and issues. Basically, the Wiki-beast has become too big to be controlled. So-called moderators are not the answer, because they are the very people in collusion to silence those they disagree with.

I think what is missing here regarding global warming is a counter-voice which is as militant as that of the POV pushers. The problem is, those folks with no agenda to advance don't tend to feel the need for militancy; having nothing to fear, they are docile. On the other hand, the global warming crowd has taken on their movement with military, and even religious, zeal. They have much to gain by promoting this agenda, according to their world-view.

Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that your efforts are appreciated. I wish I had your patience. I only wish their were more like you; Wikipedia is essentially a lost cause at this point. I view each article through newly opened eyes, and have begun to see the blatant bias in more areas than just global warming. There are many similar wolfpacks on this site, just with different focal points, and different Alpha males leading them. It doesn't take much to collect a following of staunch defenders, as we've seen here. --64.222.222.25 05:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Small
"Small" has been discussed at great length. There were previously citations there (Oreskes, among many others) but those were deemed unnecessary. This edit is against the consensus, and I have removed it. Raul654 04:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * William M. Connolley, Raymond Arritt, and Raul654 do not a consensus make. Just a pack of WikiBullies. I see no consensus on the talk page, or if there is any consensus, it's that the lack of attribution is unacceptable. --Tjsynkral 04:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stay polite, please avoid inflamatory edit summaries, and please avoid tendentious editing William M. Connolley 08:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR. --Tjsynkral 23:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Warnings
Please do not issue inappropriate warnings to other users as you did at User talk:Raul654 and User talk:Voice of All. Issuing such warnings is seen as disruption and you may be blocked from editing wikipedia if you persist in it. WjBscribe 00:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am telling you that I view them as inappropriate and disruptive and will take action if they continue. Further, users are free to remove posts from their page. Generally I take it that if a user removes a warning from their page, they have read it (though archiving is the method prefered by the community). Further posts of the warning are simply harassment. If a third party removes your warning, you can take that as I a good indication that it isn't warranted. I have now reviewed your contributions and note that you have been engaging in what is generally termed tendentious editing. Please note that Wikipedia has a policy on providing neutral coverage- it is not a place to spin conspiracy theories or over-promote minority opinions. WjBscribe 00:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently by asking a user to cite his sources I'm now "spinning conspiracy theories." Do you just assume that what Raul654 does is always right and anyone who warns him must be wrong because he is an omniscient bureaucrat? Raul654 has got a history of very tendetious editing on this article, and I think his removal of the fact tag in this case is an example of his biased conduct and personal ownership of the article. And I think he should have an opportunity to read the warning for himself rather than be sheltered from it. --Tjsynkral 00:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Tj, then leave a *note* on his talk page about it, not a generic template. Most template warnings are inappropriate to use with an established editor - admin or not. The templates are meant to inform about policies, and an established editor is highly likely to be familiar with them. WJB didn't use a template above, for instance, but typed out a message. Gimmetrow 00:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, Quaternary
Hi, is there any way I could persuade you to remove the Quaternary reference from the end of the sentence regarding the dissenting scientists? Quite frankly, I find the idea of citing that paper as a way to justify any wording that describes the number of scientists to be asinine, and I think you agree. It took a long time to get the OWNers to accept its movement, and now you've freely given back that hard fought ground.

I do believe I understand your reasoning, that the citation demonstrates how shaky their position is, and I agree that it does, but the reality of this situation is that they are simply going to leave the citation regardless. Having found the need myself to rectify some incomplete references, I am of the opinion that the OWNers don't think anyone is going to check source material -- they trust that the casual reader will take comfort in the reference number itself, and they are probably right in most cases.

Those additions I felt compelled to make have illustrated to me on no uncertain terms that the GW article is politically driven, in spite of all the howls from the OWNers to "stick to the science." There is no other explanation for the fact that those aspects of source material that could be seen as negative from their perspective are almost always omitted. This can only be deliberate, since they have clearly read those sources and will therefore have seen those negative points, yet chose to not reference them completely and neutrally.

So, while I agree with you in general, the fact remains that nobody is going to remove that citation just because it is completely inappropriate and nonsensical. The net result is that the casual reader will take it at face value and believe that the little bracketed number must confirm the statement. In other words: we lose.

Please consider the big picture. I am most likely going to quit visiting Wikipedia soon, let alone editing it, because I just don't have the time or patience to dedicate to policing the POV-pushing article OWNers. But I'd like to see that mind-boggling reference removed permanently before I run screaming from this politically driven "encyclopedia." Thanks for reading. --Triple-Deuce 20:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're unhappy with the source, find a better one. But a bad source is better than no source at all. --Tjsynkral 22:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well done, and good luck. --Triple-Deuce 00:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * regarding User:Triple-Deuce, please do not bite the new folk. --Blue Tie 03:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think he's really all that new anymore. He certainly doesn't act like someone new. --Tjsynkral 03:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fewer than 50 edits and account creation on April 28. Seems like the definition of new.  Unless Sock.  But AGF. --Blue Tie 03:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A technicality - consider his anonymous history. --Tjsynkral 04:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think that another 16 days and less than 150 edits makes him an oldtimer. But if you feel that it does, that's up to you.  However, in addition to not biting the newbies we shouldn't really bite the old timers either. --Blue Tie 04:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Few - 1RR warning
Hey, I dont know if you read it, but the sentence that you edited twice today is subject to a 1RR restriction (there is an in-line comment and one on the talk.) I dont know if that counts as a violation (to violate 1RR you may need 2 reverts...) but I am sure that if you reverted again there will be a case for a block. Be careful. I do not agree with your edit, but I will not revert because of 1RR. Have a good one, Brusegadi 07:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You have 2 reverts there: the some, and adding the ref. You have not-very-long to self revert William M. Connolley 09:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Be prepared to explain how one new edit and a different new edit is in excess of 1 revert. I count zero. --Tjsynkral 14:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Both have been done before William M. Connolley 15:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case you've already reverted it so it is moot. However I expect that will be YOUR last revert today, correct? --Tjsynkral 15:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We're all subject to the 1RR. You should have been blocked for your violation; count yourself lucky William M. Connolley 16:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Awarded The All Seeing Eye
{| style="border: 1px solid ; background-color: ;"
 * rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Great_Seal_of_the_United_States_(reverse).svg|100px]]
 * rowspan="2" |
 * style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | The All Seeing Eye
 * style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | A monumental work such as Wikipedia can only be constructed under "The All Seeing Eye." The Eye symbolizes all editors who watch for and defend: Neutrality, Truth, and Fairness. Your struggle to create a Wikipedia free of bias and censorship, makes you the worthy recipient of the "All Seeing Eye." ~ Rameses (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC) |}
 * style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | A monumental work such as Wikipedia can only be constructed under "The All Seeing Eye." The Eye symbolizes all editors who watch for and defend: Neutrality, Truth, and Fairness. Your struggle to create a Wikipedia free of bias and censorship, makes you the worthy recipient of the "All Seeing Eye." ~ Rameses (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC) |}

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)