User talk:YosemiteFudd

Hi! I know how frustrating it can be to have to helplessly stand by and watch what is perceived as a miscarriage of justice. What happens at pages like the Climategate article is that editors stick strictly with what the reliable sources say, which eliminates many sources that may contain some factual information. Wikipedia is designed to reflect mainstream thought, so the best thing to do is accept its parameters. When people access our information, they know it is what is believed and promulgated by mainstream media, science, and academia. There are many other sources for alternative viewpoints.

What items can you not find in the archives? I think everything is intact, but since there is so very much of it, navigating it is daunting. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been observing this with interest and bemusement, off and on, nearly from day one. This article's talk pages have been exceptionally prone to having talk postings deleted and removed, and from what I noticed virtually all the ones doing the removing were the 'usual suspects' who were deeply and obviously biased to protect the global-warming POV/agenda and deeply concerned with whitewashing the Climategate incident. By 'usual suspects,' just look back across the archives at those who have been unequivocally and irrationally opposed to calling the page 'Climategate.' The title alone has been a running joke where this page is concerned. As for what has been removed, there are perhaps hundreds of pages of talk, and determining exactly what has been removed over the past months and years is likely a nearly impossibly task. Take my post, for instance. I expressed an observation and opinion. It might have been irritating to some, but I was sincere. Within one day it was deleted as 'trolling.' This topic on Wikipedia is hopelessly subject to whitewashing of posts and opinions that do not jibe with the ultimate goal of the global warming agendists. I suppose everything is hidden somewhere in the history, deletions included.YosemiteFudd (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've seen my arguments for calling it "Climategate," then. (Click here and search my name.) I have to admit they wouldn't accept the MSM's term on that one.

What Dave souza blanked is right here. Fighting doesn't help, and your comments were not constructive. On the rare times I find the consensus is against the RSs, I've learned to drop it. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yopienso, my original reply to your latest was a tad caustic. Perhaps unnecessarily so. I toned down the opening diatribe with this edit.

Anyway, "constructive" is a subjective term. Looking at it from within the confines of the mentality that pervades on that page, oh yes, I am sure my critical and contemptuous flourishes are not quick to be picked up as "constructive." HOWEVER, looking at my remarks as a barometer for what an incredulous observer (such as myself) might perceive, perhaps it might at least snap a few out of their hyper-POV trance. Assuredly it struck a nerve to the point where it was hastily deleted. Get it outta here! Pronto! Aaaahhh!

Furthermore, the True Believers' utterly ridiculous gatekeeping and rabidly agenda-driven bias on that page has been, arguably, one of the most counter-constructive (read: DESTRUCTIVE) incidents in the short history of Wikipedia. When you have that kind of pure propaganda going on, you're going to have some pushback, constructive or otherwise. Besides all that, it's a discussion page, there for expression, venting, hashing out, rough drafts --- and yes, you're going to have some arguments and opinions some might not enjoy; nor may everyone find them "constructive." Ain't that a shame. Deleting it from the behind-the-scenes talk page is just the height of wussiness and shows how intolerant the self-appointed "masters: of that page really are.YosemiteFudd (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk page edits

Article talk pages are for constructive discussion concerning article improvement. Please avoid making negative comments about other users. Vsmith (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your sanctimonious, unctuous, hypocritical drivel off my talk page, thou pusillanimous servile obfuscating truth-suppressing shill. You and your one-sided Wiki-Lawyering be damned -- along with your deletions/reversions of even so much as a "talk page" comment that doesn't toe the line of your agenda. Yeah, that's the real problem -- cannot even so much as complain behind the scenes with you bigots. As the saying goes, "ruler" of your pitiful little fiefdom. YosemiteFudd (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Hello, I'm Mikenorton. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User:Vsmith that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mikenorton (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm KimDabelsteinPetersen. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused; whom am I addressing, robot #1 or #2? What is that, an auto-generated form letter sent to the purportedly "uncivil" who dare to bring their boorishness to Wiki-land? "Civil"?! -- when liberal useful-idiots start acting "civil" then I'll listen to such pleasant "helpful" advice; they're the most uncivil, arrogant, sanctimonious, contemptuous, bigoted douchebags you'd ever want to interact with. They are GATE-KEEPING close-minded know-it-alls who couldn't be wronger. To hell with "being civil." That page -- and the talk-pages associated with it -- are a stinkhole of hypocrisy and propaganda and corruption. "Civil." Sheesh. Maybe a few more people need to acquire some justifiable indignation; maybe a little healthy ire would be a refreshing change from the spineless hangers-on at this pathetic "venue."YosemiteFudd (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are treating wikipedia like a WP:BATTLEGROUND. If you continue with the pointless incivility and the disruption, it is likely you will be blocked. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie -- it seems you are an insulated moron. I value my "precious" Wikipedia "membership" at about the same level as I would a "frequent user card" at Assholes and Lips Submarine Sandwiches. Ooooohhh! I may be blocked from posting under this username at this shithole! Woe is me!

PS, take your Wiki-link/Wiki-reference and Wiki-cram it Wiki-sideways ... if it will Wiki-fit. If you think you are able to use a noun such as "battleground" contextually and efficaciously, then just do so and spare me the showy and asinine Wiki-flourish.

As for your trivial threat, you spineless wriggling little maggot, if that's how far into censorship this hellhole has descended -- to the point where you get some scurrying martinet "admin" cutting you off at your own talk page -- then I wish you Wiki-idiots luck. Sayonara.YosemiteFudd (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]