Saturday, October 23, 2010

Wikipedia: William Connolley was just replaced by Tony Sidaway and Stephan Schulz

William Connolley, the climate propagandist-in-chief at Wikipedia, has been officially denied the right to edit articles related to the climate for half a year.

I was somewhat skeptical about the results of this gesture but I still tried what it meant. The first action I took was to restore the section about the ClimateGate and the tree reconstructions at the page about Keith Briffa because it's clearly the most important section of that page that actually justifies why Keith Briffa deserves his own Wikipedia entry.

The section was quickly erased by a user called Stephan Schulz. He threatened me with some sanctions if I edited the article again and so did another jerk called Tony Sidaway (a notorious transvestite and scientologist) - on my talk page. This nasty scum never hesitates to spread lies about distinguished scientists - e.g. the NIPCC members - and blackmail everyone who is inconvenient for them.

To see what these people are all about, just search for Stephan Schulz at the talk page of the article about the "Scientific opinion on climate change", or check the contributions by Stephan Schulz and contributions by Tony Sidaway. Or Sidaway's alarmist blog. In both cases, most of their edits are related to global warming and every single one was done to distort Wikipedia in the direction of the AGW crusaders and/or attack skeptics.

I don't know for sure whether these users are William Connolley's sockpuppets - as has been previously argued. What I am certain about is that with these immoral jerks' significant influence on Wikipedia, this online encyclopedia cannot become a trustworthy source of information about the climate, whether the particular user called William Connolley is banned or not.

So a few days ago, I naively wanted to encourage the users to improve the quality of the Wikipedia articles about the climate - because there could be some room for it, at least for 6 months. Obviously, that won't work. But you may still try.

1 comment:

  1. Quote:

    "Just because there is gray does not mean we cannot distinguish white from black. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

    Yes it does. many optical illusions exist on that principal alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC) "