It looks like Connolley is bound and determined to own the article of his most prominent critic, despite any requests to the contrary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...awrence_Solomon

I don't think this sort of thing for "known" parties is a good idea at all. Solomon if he had a user account shouldn't touch Connelly's own article, no more than Connelly should touch his, or any more than [[User:Lyndon LaRouche]] should be editing [[Chip Berlet]]/[[Dennis King]] or vice versa. I'm sure there are even more examples that I've never heard of.

Looks like the discussion moved to ANI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...awrence_Solomon

I'll admit that I myself am agnostic on the subject of Global Warming. But I have to admit I'm a little bit prejudiced by the actions of Al Gore. He keeps preaching that we are warming like crazy, but, by all reports, he himself keeps tossing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere like there's no tomorrow. I'm afraid it reminds me of television preachers who keep telling us that Jesus is showing up anytime, but they still spend the donation money on hookers and blow.

Same crap with all the Hollywood and Washington dipshits who tell us we have to cut down on carbon - doesn't seem to stop them from flying around on private jets, having huge houses, and travelling with their entourages in fleets of SUVs. Fuck 'em.

There's a bit of the Let them eat cake quality to Gore's pronouncements -- the carbon emissions problem is obviously the fault of all those little dirty people who can't affort to trade carbon offsets with Gore's hedge fund.

Oh but, from what the GW articles states on Wikipedia, it is water vapor that is the worst enemy that causes global warming.

Now, there is a plan to put lime in all the oceans... yes every one on earth... to help stop water vapor (and CO2):


The very thing even came up on slashdot.

That is gonna destroy the economy for all those little kids that put out lemonade stands and all because of Wikipedia's GW article.

It might be COI if WMC edits Limnic Eruptions.

How many times has WMC been involved in trouble recently? Not pointing fingers.

By his own admittance.

A lot of times; he blocked Bardcom/High King in a personal dispute last week even while there was an ANI charge against him that he abused his tools to block people he was involved with. I tried to reason with him but it appears he doesn't do reason.

Ah - so thats what bking is on about...

Archived ANI thread

The thread is out of order so dunno for sure what happened. Looks like it went towards one being so called right based on personal credentials rather than available secondary sources.

Torpedo = a person who harasses minors by proxy.
Damn them indeed!!!

Jon

Someone named User:Rameses really wants people to know about the Solomon op-ed piece:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=229333667

He even created an article called "Wikipropoganda" complete with citations (all of them to the Solomon article!) which Rau654 speedily deleted. Raul then blocked Rameses.

Does Solomon still have an active account?

Connelley has done this so many times its not funny.

I think WMC is going to be the first Wikiadmin to face a real defamation charge in a real court.

Raul654 has gone back to the very article which caused the latest round of Lawrence's criticism of Wikipedia - Benny Peiser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=225822753

Does this remind anyone of Rosalind Picard? But it's all in the cause of castigating those evil non-manmade-global-warming-believing heretics, so it's OK. Go Raul!

Rosalind Picard... why does that name sound so familiar? Hmm. If only I could remember who that excellent user who fixed up that article and justified her notability as far more than a silly petition and a NYTimes article.... hmmm!

I think this quotation describes the current situation rather well:

"the global warming hypothesis was once grounded in science; has now become so politicized because this is the only way to get action; and therefore that the expression of activism through both censorship and exaggeration is justified."

... quoted from Zdnet article

Who is being quoted here?

Is this the original source? If so, it's a musing on Wikipedia in response to the Solomon piece. Author seems to hit the nail, but unusually shitty comments in that forum.