Redirected article

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for creating the article, Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. However, there already is an article on that topic, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, so your article was redirected to the existing one. Please take advantage of the search feature to find similar-named articles before creating them in the future—and feel free to redirect alternate spellings of existing articles. Thanks. snigbrook (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to Snigbrook

Climategate

We have been advised that the biography of Lord Monckton of Brenchley contains numerous inaccuracies deliberately inserted by a group of Wikipedia editors who appear to us to have been paid, full-time, to disrupt the Wikipedia entries of anyone who dares to speak out against the supposed "consensus" about climate change. We therefore inserted a biography of Lord Monckton that was taken from Who's Who and other reliable sources, to see what happened. It appears to us that, since our amended biography has been suppressed, the matter should be reported to the fraud police now investigating Wikipedia's role in maintaining the financial and scientific fraud that underlies certain aspects of the climate debate. Subject to anything that you may say, your refusal to post up the corrected biography will be notified to the police as an instance of what may be part of a pattern of systematic fraud on the part of Wikipedia editors.

Furthermore, the policy of Wikipedia to refuse to mention the possibility that the Climategate emails were released lawfully by a whistleblower is an instance of objectionable prejudice, which we shall now publicize worldwide. Your contribution appears to fit into this patter. It appears that Wikipedia has made itself part of the underlying scientific fraud that is now under investigation by Interpol, Europol, the East Anglia police, and the e-crime unit of the Metropolitan Police, as well as by the US Congress. Wikipedia's unreasonable unwillingness to allow proper and balanced discussion of anything to do with the debate about climate, and its refusal to block editors such as Connolley, ChrisO, Dabelstein-Petersen and others who are paid full-time to hack and disrupt the Wikipedia biographies of anyone who dares to question the scientific "orthodoxy" about "global warming", is no longer acceptable and appears to be part of a pattern of criminal behavior. Wikipedia, and you, will be reported to police in this context.

This isn't a reasonable way to deal with a dispute. Maybe there are problems with the existing article, but they should be resolved in that article and its talk page, or nominating it for deletion, not by creating a duplicate article. I'm not involved in the dispute, either with this article or with any of the articles related to global warming – I was just looking at Special:Newpages or Special:RecentChanges, noticed a duplicate of an existing article, and redirected it – so please withdraw your threat. I think it's unlikely that any Wikipedia editors or administrators were involved in the incident you mention. snigbrook (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the mention (on my talk page) about biographies being "hacked" doesn't make sense either, as Wikipedia is a site that anyone can edit. If there are any problems with the article you mention, you could discuss on the talk page, and edit the article (when it's unprotected, or when your account is autoconfirmed) or use Wikipedia:Contact us to resolve the problem. Unfortunately I don't know what the specific problems are (either with Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley article or the articles related to the Climategate emails), and looking at the article I can see a large number of changes, many without explanation. The Climategate emails (and the article Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, which is currently protected from editing) appear to be one of the major areas of dispute in Wikipedia, and I'm sure there are editors on all sides of the dispute who know more about it than I do, and are more able to resolve the situation than I am. snigbrook (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, the original article is protected against editing. All attempts to address the problem on this and many other biographies of those who have dared to speak out against the view on climate that Wikipedia religiously espouses have similarly failed. Please do not interfere, therefore, in the creation of accurate entries that are the only way to restore balance when inaccurate entries - after all reasonable attempts at correction by many hands - have remained uncorrected. Some of the inaccuracies in the Monckton article are severe, and attempts have been made to correct them many times, but without the slightest success. At present, therefore, we are minded to report you as part of this process, since a major investigation of Wikipedia's role in the wider climate scandal is now under way, and Wikipedia's shameful mistreatment of those who disagree with its blind faith in anthropogenic global warming is at the center of that investigation.

If I hadn't redirected it, it would have been either redirected or nominated for deletion by another editor (at least with the redirect the page history is still there, and can be copied into user space to be worked on). It looks like you have been blocked from editing by an administrator, however if you withdraw any threats you have made your account could probably be unblocked. If you then avoid making threats, and discuss with users instead of attempting to circumvent policy and consensus, it is more likely that you will be listened to by the users who are create the consensus on those articles. With the article I redirected, you would be able to create a page in your user namespace (for example User:Fraudpolice/Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley), where it is unlikely to be deleted or redirected, and use the main article's talk page to discuss incorporating some of the changes into the existing article. snigbrook (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Climategate scandal

A tag has been placed on Climategate scandal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. MuffledThud (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]