User talk:Mnyakko
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Global Warming Skeptic category up for deletion
Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming is up for deletion. If you would like to comment on this, feel free to do so here. Oren0 20:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Understanding warm bias in the temperature record
I know you have an interest in global warming. As you may know, there are serious problems with the temperature record being biased by UHI or similar warming biases related to land use changes, etc. ClimateAudit.org is organizing an effort to photograph sites. Understanding the issue will help you be a better editor and improve the quality of Wikipedia articles on AGW. If you are interested, you could be a part of the effort. Please take a look here. [1] RonCram 05:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up.
- On a different note, did you see the latest abuse of power from Raul654?
- So, Raul654 blocks Zeeboid. The crime? Making "this luidcrious edit" [sic]. The edit was removing the word "controversial", which was placed in the article by RaymondArritt. The edit summary was "Undid revision 136172818 by talk) RV, No Current concensus" [sic].
- What was the blockable offense?
- Is a "ridiculous" edit (and by what referable standard) enough for a block?
- How about when considering the blocker, Raul654 (Bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, Administrator) made this edit just 2 weeks earlier? That edit (to the same article) was changing a Heading from the non-POV "Points" to the weasel word "Claims". The edit summary was "point implies that it might actually hold water. Claim is more accurate description of their propaganda".
- Clearly an abuse of power in that noone in Wikipedia will do anything to Raul654 for such blatant hypocrisy, article ownership, and POV enforcing admin actions. I guess, this is the type of "neutrality" Wikipedia's founders want.
- Oh, and about that word, "controversy", being in the opening of a documentary about Global Warming...Jersyko was brought in via a RfC. That person's objective determination on the matter was given on May 29, 2007 and said the following:
- "The controversy, if discussed in the article, should be discussed in the introduction by way of "brief description" (perhaps a sentence or two; the introduction to this article actually needs to be expanded a bit on the whole). The descriptor "controversial", used in the first sentence of the intro, however, is problematic. It provides no context in favor of making the absolute (if referenced) determination that the film is, in fact, controversial. Whether the film is controversial is a matter of opinion; whether it has been described as controversial by specific sources is not."
- None of the Global Warming article owners were blocked for removing "controversy" from the the other article, yet somehow the rules change now.
- Pathetic display by all of the Admins involved in this one. -- Tony G 21:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your user and user talk pages
Your user and user talk pages seem to be dedicated to attacking specific editors and admins with whom you disagree. The user page policy forbids using your user page for "polemical statements", and Jimbo Wales has said that "using userpages to attack people... is a bad idea". In light of that, I'm wondering if you'd consider removing the attacks in question. MastCell Talk 05:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please be specific...what "attacks" are you referring to? I am using my user page as a journal of my Wikipedia experiences and lessons.-- Tony G 14:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- A journal of your experiences is one thing. The first two sections of your user talk page, as well as your entire user page, seem devoted to attacking specific admins and editors with whom you've come into conflict. You make a number of accusations toward (among others) William Connolley, Raul654, Raymond Arritt, etc. There are mechanisms for addressing disputes on Wikipedia; rehashing them on your user and user talk pages is unlikely to be productive, though. MastCell Talk 16:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- "There are mechanisms..."--yeah, sure, mechanisms I am sure have as much consistency and fairness as all of the others throughout the project. I have been following and making note of much of the "mechanisms"...how they work, rationales and justification as well as the pattern of absent explanations. There is nothing to suggest that any mechanism offers a fair process to resolve such issues. Especially when the issues involve admins, their friends, checkusers, etc. So, thanks for the offer, but no thanks. I think I will continue to chronicle my wiki-experiences on my user page where the governing "rules" are not as biased and rigged. -- Tony G 01:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
-
As an uninvolved admin, I concur that it resembles an attack page, and as such, I removed it. Which isn't to say that you're not permitted to chronicle your grievances of specific editors, only that such an account be geared to active attempt to resolve the dispute. Thanks in advance. El_C 05:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting...truth is "attack". Exactly what I'm talking about...the system is fixed. Not surprised in the least that an admin removed unflattering truth about another admin. -- Tony G 04:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Invite
 |
I notice you have expressed an interest in logic. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about logic in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on logic topics. We at the project invite your participation and correspondence. Be well. |
Gregbard 21:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
