User talk:Zymoticus

The Great Global WarmingSwindle
Hi Zymoticus, and welcome to Wikipedia. As you've no doubt noticed, the edits you're making to the above-noted page are being quickly reverted. This is because including the word "alleged" violates the current Wikipedia consensus on the status of the majority scientific view on human-driven global warming, and the external links you're trying to add are not closely enough related to the article (which is about a specific movie, not the entire controversy) - see WP:EL for that. If you do want to make these edits, I'd recommend bringing them up on the article's talk page to try to gain consensus for them.

If you have any questions about this or any other element of Wikipedia, please don't hesitate to leave a note on my talk page. Again, welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, it may interest you to read WP:3RR - you have currently violated that policy. The policy recommends that you revert your own third reversion, to reduce the chances of being blocked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A couple of things - first, I have no idea whether or not you're a sock of a banned user, so I'm keeping an open mind on that question. Second, my comments about "the wider issue rather than the film itself" was directed at the links you added, not at your use of alleged.  External links in articles should be on the same subject as the article, and those links don't appear to mention the film at all.  Third, I understand your point for wanting to include "alleged" in there, but that violates the Wikipedia consensus on the subject.  If you want to include it, you'll have to change consensus, which you should start doing by opening a discussion on the article talk page.  I have to warn you, though, that you'll be fighting an uphill battle on that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

- So apparently all that's needed to perpetuate an ideologically biased entry is to assemble a large enough group of people corrupt enough to defy reality, thereby creating a "consensus?" Wonderfully apropos the topic in question, I think.

I guess your ideological bias wins and this particular Wikipedia entry is successfully vandalized, because I have a life to get back to. - Z

Addendum: The "sock puppet" accusation, now that I've looked up what it means, appears to be a species of ad hominem, the Poisoning the Well variant. Sorry, guess again - 'just me here.

Apology
My suspicion of sockpuppetry was based on very close stylistic similarities to that user but checkuser shows no evidence of sockpuppetry, so I withdraw that statement with apologies. To avoid further misunderstandings I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, original research, neutral point of view, and undue weight. I would be glad to answer any questions you might have about those policies. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)