Tony thanks for the apology However it really doesn t alter the fact that Wikipedia as a body has been entirely hypocritical in regard to sceptics of global warming The neutral point of view is defined as the peer reviewed science which if you had read the climategate emails and followed this subject generally you would know really means the view of a very political group of scientists who have used wikipedia like a propaganda machine Unfortunately for you the internet doesn t forget It s already starting to happen on the climate and no doubt within a few years I am quite sure there will be numerous instances in numerous subject where people are bringing out old articles from Wikipedia and highlighting the way they were POV in the extreme I m absolutely sure one of those areas will be the climate articles And very soon as the consensus on subjects change as real facts and not opinions of people calling themselves scientists come to light the right wing press will have a field day highlighting the embarrassing way Wikipedia got it wrong in so many areas The stupid thing is that people like me tried to bl dy well warn you and all we got is sarky remarks and warning not be warlike Well to be quite frank I m glad I didn t invest more time editing Wikipedia as I think an awful lot of good work is going to be severely tarnished by the stupid politicking of people like you on the climate and don t try to pretend that neutrally keeping out sceptical views is not a form of politicking and POV pushing because it is Wikipedia deserves its declining reputation because it never wanted a NPOV and I ve only ever wanted NPOV on climate articles and I m sick till vomiting of the disgusting attitude of of the hypocrits who run this show who don t want NPOV but just their POV And over the last week I ve seen a dozen obvious mistakes some in articles I once read but why the heck should I correct them when Wikipedia doesn t care about truth and honesty only POV pushing on petty politics on the climate